Scott Chacon

Most-linked posts?

1. GitHub Flow
   22 people · 24 mentions · first linked 2011-08-31

What Hacker News says?

1. schacon · 2025-02-25

   I'm curious what you mean. I've been practicing trunk based development since 2011[0] and all of these config settings help that flow. Arguably you don't want the rebase thing, but otherwise I can't imagine what you think here would not apply. [0] https://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow/

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow/

   on “How Core Git Developers Configure Git”
2. schacon · 2011-08-31

   Submitted GitHub Flow as a story · 327 points

   HN discussion
3. krisdol · 2015-06-19

   > We might have swung a little too far in the other direction I think you're describing "GitHub flow", or how most people starting out with git would probably use it given no exposure to git-flow. Github flow introduction: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html Documentation (it's really unnecessary if you get the idea): https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   on “GitFlow considered harmful”
4. schacon · 2026-07-29

   Submitted Deep dive into Git's wire protocol as a story · 2 points

   HN discussion
5. rattray · 2015-06-19

   I actually thought GitHub Flow was more commonly used, as it's lighter-weight: [1] http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html [2] https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   on “GitFlow considered harmful”
6. ichilton · 2012-02-16

   Submitted GitHub Flow as a story · 2 points

   HN discussion
7. purephase · 2015-06-19

   Exactly. I love this process, and endeavour to drop all dev/develop branches from the repos I'm working in. Sensational headline aside, I've seen a lot less untangling when feature-branching off of master and a judicious use of tags. While it's dated at this point, I've always felt that the Github flow [1] works best (for the projects I'm involved with anyway). [1] http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   on “GitFlow considered harmful”
8. timmow · 2013-11-12

   The number one feature I wish github would add is a setting to prevent force pushing to master, but allow a forced push to all other branches. This would allow us to use a branching model like http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html but we would still be able to rebase branches after code review, without the danger of rewriting history on the master branch. You can do something similar with client side ho…

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   on “Jenkin developers accidentally do "git push --force" to over 150 repos on github”
9. saidajigumi · 2013-11-11

   > Alternatively use git the way it was meant to be used, as a distributed source control system. Let's not be disingenuous. This is exactly what every git user does when they run `git clone`. You aren't railing against just multiple committers per public repo, you're railing against multiple clones per public repo. One user swapping between two client systems can make this error. Most public repos of any scale will…

   Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

   on “Jenkin developers accidentally do "git push --force" to over 150 repos on github”
10. wickedchicken · 2012-10-04

    This is great for people who are that organized. I'm not, so I like the 'just merge everything into master' mentality. See http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Linus on keeping a clean git history (2009)”
11. potomak · 2013-09-28Recommends

    I suggest also reading "GitHub Flow"[1] by Scott Chacon about this topic. [1] http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “A simple git branching model”
12. lmm · 2014-01-10

    To my mind git-flow is overcomplicated; I prefer http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Simple git workflow is simple”
13. trumbitta2 · 2014-01-10Recommends

    I, for one, like this workflow which is simple and elicits collaboration and creates history: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Simple git workflow is simple”
14. lmm · 2018-02-13Recommends

    http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html is the style I favour. It certainly involves steps but every distinction it forces you to draw feels meaningful (at least to me), with the possible exception of the commit/push distinction which is a performance optimisation (I certainly wouldn't want to have to wait for a push on every commit).

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Advantages of monolithic version control”
15. lysium · 2012-01-20

    github uses a different flow. This article mentions the issues with git-flow and describes the flow used at github: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “The Real Difference Between Git and Mercurial”
16. chmaynard · 2020-02-15

    Regarding (1), I just ran across an old blog post by Scott Chacon about using git bundles. http://scottchacon.com/2010/03/10/bundles.html git-bundle documentation: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bundle

    Comment linking /2010/03/10/bundles.html

    on “The History of Git”
17. fhwang · 2012-01-28

    Branching can often be a good strategy if you have a large team and you don't want large uncompleted chunks of work to block quick fixes & deploys, etc. The situation you want to avoid is: 1. Engineers A & B are working on a medium-sized story that's not really done yet, but is in master anyway 2. Somebody discovers a small but critical bug in production 3. Engineer C can write a bugfix very soon, but can't deploy i…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Visualized Git practices for team: branch, merge, rebase”
18. gabrtv · 2013-09-24

    With http://deis.io/ we tried GitFlow as well as HubFlow ( http://datasift.github.io/gitflow/ ) which adds better GitHub integration. After a few release cycles, we decided to switch back to simple feature branches with a master that is always deployable.. modeled after GitHub's workflow: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html We found GitFlow's benefits weren't enough to compensate for the added complex…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “A successful Git branching model (2010)”
19. WillAbides · 2017-03-01

    Git Flow and GitHub Flow are actually distinct from each other. Here's a blog post about it from Scott Chacon. http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “GitHub Enterprise 2.9 is here”
20. guynamedloren · 2014-08-08

    Great read. I'm a huge advocate of using files and version control (specifically markdown and git) for published content, so I hope this workflow catches on. Two improvements that are worth thinking about: 1) A public repository for content, separate from the main codebase. I was excited by the inclusion of "anyone" in the post title, assuming that they accepted pull requests on existing content (typos, improved doc…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “How we allow anyone to make and publish changes to our site”
21. davesims · 2011-11-28

    Offhand I can think of a few: ThoughtWorks uses it on most of their projects afaik. Github I believe does as well. They published an interesting blog on their deployment process a couple of months ago. http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html Where I work at LivingSocial the web application is deployed daily, sometimes dozens of times a day. I've recently taken over the Android project's infrastructure and…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Software philosophy: Release early, release often vs polished releases”
22. qohen · 2014-09-18

    [0] http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Ask HN: Who uses gitflow?”
23. rubiquity · 2014-09-18

    Gitflow seems a bit too complicated for my liking. I've been using Scott Chacon's "GitHub Flow"[0] for over three years, with the added twist that after the PR has been reviewed and approved, I rebase all of my commits to a single commit with a descriptive commit log of changes and a link to a Trello/Basecamp/whatever card for the feature. 0 - http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Ask HN: Who uses gitflow?”
24. integraton · 2013-11-15

    See "github flow": http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Ask HN: Do you branch?”
25. lotyrin · 2013-10-26

    After getting hired on my current team my first course of action was to move from gitflow to github flow. http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html If you break projects into small iterations made up of independent effort and continuously integrate feature branches, you should be able to get away with few long-living branches, and you can rebase the ones that you do have from their upstreams frequently enou…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Ask HN: What's your experience of working with git flow?”
26. qohen · 2013-06-24

    Github found git-flow wasn't suitable given that they do CI and developed their own method of using git, Github Flow: http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html A different article on a CI-based approach, with comparison to git-flow: http://nxvl.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-continous-delivery-git-br...

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “A successful Git branching model”
27. prats226 · 2016-02-15Recommends

    Don't know if it fits well but its a nice article talking about why github doesn't use gitflow workflow http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html I am not denying that automated tests are not necessary but I believe that continuously deploying code and then fixing bugs that occur in the code is atleast faster way to code. Github flow certainly doesn't work very well with mobile development main reason being…

    Comment linking /2011/08/31/github-flow.html

    on “Git workflow for mobile development”

Search all of HN for scottchacon.com

Linked by the same people?

• AA Neighborhood of Infinityblog.sigfpe.com
• MMarco Armentmarco.org
• MMartin Fowlermartinfowler.com
• TThe GitHub Bloggithub.blog
• PPaul Grahampaulgraham.com